When I hear my fellow baby boomers gleefully talk about their elaborate plans to retire ASAP, head for the Tuscan hills, or otherwise continue their lifelong quest for "self-actualization," I have to bite my tongue.

It's not that I'm all work and no play. But there's just something - make that lots of things - wrong, in general, with retiring at 55, 62 or even 65. I would go so far as to call it profoundly selfish and unpatriotic.

However, if Americans retired later, either staying in their current jobs or taking up "encore careers" - what Marc Freedman of Civic Ventures calls do-good, later-life jobs - we could significantly slow the growth of our multitrillion-dollar national debt, which is largely driven by rising Medicare and Social Security costs (as yesterday's Social Security trustees' report makes abundantly clear). We also could keep more people in a labor force that would no longer be growing appreciably if not for immigrants. For individuals, working longer can mean more income and savings and something to bequeath to one's children. For the nation, if millions of us worked until 67 instead of 62, Americans' wealth and consumption would increase appreciably, fueling stronger economic growth. That added income would provide about $800 billion in additional tax revenues, and reduce government benefit costs by at least $100 billion in 2045, according to Urban Institute calculations. This alone would cut the projected deficit in 2045 by 159 percent.

To encourage such behavior, Social Security benefits taken before age 66 or 70 could be more highly taxed, and employee rates of Social Security taxation could be progressively reduced for each year worked after 66 or 70. Or the government could provide a similar sliding tax credit for Americans who continue working beyond age 70.

I guess more of your SS benefits would go to No Child Left Behind and Hillary/Obama fee Health Care (for illegals) unless you kept working and paying taxes on job salary for same purpose.

I hated it when Reagan and Clinton raised income taxes on social security benefits to pay for the general budget, It's no better than the phony I OWE YOUs they wrote themselves while spending the SS taxes. Notice they wont call for just cutting the benefits, that would show it's just a welfare ripoff scheme. By taxing SS benefits the people who paid no income taxes (but paid minimum SS taxes ) dont get a cut in SS benefits because they make under the income limit once gain.

But there's just something - make that lots of things - wrong, in general, with retiring at 55, 62 or even 65. I would go so far as to call it profoundly selfish and unpatriotic.

Take a flying leap off the nearest skyscraper, Yarrow. I'm retiring the day I turn 62, and I'd retire sooner if your beloved liberals weren't stealing so much of my income. You are not entitled to my labor, and I am not morally obligated to work to support your socialist nanny state.

Seems to think the problem with government is not enough revenue. WRONG!! It's too much spending. Bush and his liberal Republican cronies have been spending our, our childrens' money and their subsequent generations' money at a rate that would embarrass Bill Clinton.

6
posted on 03/27/2008 10:59:57 AM PDT
by from occupied ga
(Your most dangerous enemy is your own government,)

Yeah, people should work longer so they can pay more taxes to help fund other people. If someone decides they can retire at 30 and they don’t expect anybody else to support them, what business is it of mine?

The next step is euthanasia of the elderly. “It is selfish and unpatriotic to consume government funds, when they could be going to children or health care or [fill in the blank]. You are no longer productive, and it's unpatriotic to consume more than you produce. (cough-unless you're one of a number of special minority groups, then it's expected you won't produce, as you're a victim-cough)”

One small step, folks...

20
posted on 03/27/2008 11:11:53 AM PDT
by Hoffer Rand
(Forget "Who is John Galt?" I want to know "Where is Galt's Gulch?")

Take a flying leap off the nearest skyscraper, Yarrow. I’m retiring the day I turn 62, and I’d retire sooner if your beloved liberals weren’t stealing so much of my income. You are not entitled to my labor, and I am not morally obligated to work to support your socialist nanny state.

The point is, that if you were able to keep what you have earned, you may, in fact not need social security to supplement your retirement. Thus, the whole purpose of the program is exposed as a fraud and scam to redistribute your income to those more deserving of your hard work.

I look at my AGI as reported by the SS Admin and compare what I have paid in taxes to FICA and what I would have (imputed value based on DJIA 1980 to present) as a nest-egg (about 2.2 million) now, were those funds not stolen from me. I could retire from my job, today at 45, and live very comfortably for the rest of my life.

I retired 3 years ago next week and am only upset because I wanted to do so by the time I reached 50 and it took til I was 52.
Why work more if I don’t need the money?
I ride my Harley, Fly my plane, fish and play on my boat, and travel.
I don’t take anything from the govt even though they still take from me. and I don’t bother anyone.
I worked hard and am now just enjoying and doing anything I want.
Raise my taxes? Fine. Guess I’ll go scuba diving.
Life’s real nice.

To encourage such behavior, Social Security benefits taken before age 66 or 70 could be more highly taxed, and employee rates of Social Security taxation could be progressively reduced for each year worked after 66 or 70. Or the government could provide a similar sliding tax credit for Americans who continue working beyond age 70.

Aw, shucks. Why can't the liberals be straight with us, skip the foreplay, and go straight to the full-blown command economy?

Oh wait, I forgot, people would actually throw them out if that happened.

27
posted on 03/27/2008 11:18:35 AM PDT
by rabscuttle385
(I have great faith in the American people. I have no faith in the American government, however.)

Raising the Social Security eligibility age would have the effect of reducing our fiscal problems. At the time SS was instituted, the retirement age was around the age the average American expected to be dead and buried. If we raised the SS eligibility age to 72 to 77, I don’t think we would have a multi-trillion dollar problem on our hands any more. Seniors who did not save up on their own would work until they dropped (or when they became eligible for SS) - seniors who did would retire before they became eligible for SS, pretty much as it was when SS was first put into place.

If older people retire, that means these jobs (not through attrition) are open to younger people to take ! It is good, not bad.

About liberals, they are similar to the puritans. They want you to work and work very hard but not allow you to - gasp ! To enjoy the fruits of your labor. One manager I worked for who is a liberal didn't like it when you took vacation and he would put roadblocks in the way to make it difficult to take the time off. One thing was not granting approval for the time off until a few days before you leave - very high cost on plane fare.

At the time SS was instituted, the retirement age was around the age the average American expected to be dead and buried.

Average life span is a bad number to use because it improperly counts the affect infant and childhood mortality have. A child dying has no affect on the financial status of retirement plans. It's sad for the parents, but since the kid never put anything into SS he doesn't affect the accounting.

A better number would be life expectancy of someone who has hit 18 and is entering the work force. I expect that number is significantly higher than the 63-65 ages we often see for life expectancy when SS was started.

What really makes them angry is the fact that there are so many people who saved money and can afford to retire at 62. They simply must find a way to separate people from the money they spent their whole lives saving up by enacting confiscatory taxes to take it all away.

That’s the smart thing to do, IMO. For many of us baby boomers, the difference in benefits between retiring at 62 rather than 66 will not be equaled until 76 YO.

IOW, if you retire at 62, your benefits will be reduced by 25% to 30%. If you wait until 66 to 67 to start drawing SS, it will take you at least until you are 76 before you have received the same total amount of money that you will be retiring at 62. (For those born in 1960, the break-even is at almost 79 YO.)

Average life span is a bad number to use because it improperly counts the affect infant and childhood mortality have. A child dying has no affect on the financial status of retirement plans. It's sad for the parents, but since the kid never put anything into SS he doesn't affect the accounting. A better number would be life expectancy of someone who has hit 18 and is entering the work force. I expect that number is significantly higher than the 63-65 ages we often see for life expectancy when SS was started.

Makes no difference which set of figures you use. Child mortality stopped being an issue stateside during the 20th century. Average life span went from the low 60's to the low 80's. That's 20 more years for SS to carry, which is a really heavy burden, considering the pay-as-you-go nature of the program.

Of course, if SS were structured so that people got what they put in, instead of getting more than they paid in, SS wouldn't have a solvency problem. At the same time, without the getting-something-for-nothing aspect of SS, it wouldn't be anywhere near as popular as it is today.

“Ill tell you what, Andy, you work until you fall over dead from old age, while I retire and cruise around the country in my geezer RV.”

I retired, started a second career and now plan on leaving the work force, primarily due to the confiscatory tax system that punishes tax payers for earning more income, just as is done in other socialist countries.

It’s time to sit back now and come out ahead tax wise without bothering to work in retirement.

More and more of the baby boom generation will be doing this soon.

So Hitlery and Obama tax the working men and women all that you want and watch the coming collapse.

“...given our nation’s crying need for teachers, social service workers and public servants, millions of “seasoned citizens” could serve our communities...”

What a maroon. I could easily retire now, but am working to do some fun stuff. However, were I to retire, I could teach at the university level (since I have a PhD), but could not teach at the high school level. And, I never would, because I would NEVER lower my IQ by taking any of the marshmallow courses offered to those pursuing a degree in “education”.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.